Touche.... :D

Michale

"You were supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them...Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!"

That's so apropos, it's scary!! :D

Michale

An easy mistake to make, when you're used to people using only three initials instead of four.

i don't think i'm anti-obama at all, just depressingly rooted in reality.

everything in big O's first year, the ACA included, i chalk up to inexperience - that's on us for not knowing better in the primary. plus i'm still very much in his corner when he does something that i think might help working people, even just a little. and on foreign policy so-far he's the best republican since ike. turns out that bush's plans weren't so ineffective after all (and that was my main criticism), bush himself just wasn't competent enough to carry them out.

"You were supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them...Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!"

alas...

raspy hollow voice"Obi-Obama has taught you well, but you must embrace the dark side.

:D

Michale

I stand corrected.. You are, indeed, correct... :D

To be honest, next to me, your the most Anti-Obama'ist around here.. :D

Michale

i believe i did mention that DWS refused to endorse south florida democrats in '08, ostensibly "because of her good friendship" with three local republicans. the unsubstantiated rumor is that she really did this in exchange for them withdrawing their support from a republican challenger in her district. not a great precedent for someone ostensibly dedicated to growing the influence of her own party. Raul Martinez, Joe Garcia and Annette Taddeo, all decent candidates, suffered from her silence.

Michale

"Something that would have been good to know YESTERDAY!!!!"
-Adam Sandler, THE WEDDING SINGER

:D

Seriously, I thought DWS was the living end around here. No one said "Boo" when her praises were being sung to the heavens...

If I recall correctly, I think she has also received a couple MIDOTW awards and several Honorable Mentions..

Michale

that post was short but brilliant. the phrase, "ladies of negotiable affection" may actually include DWS, depending on which sort of affection we're discussing. in any case, my favorite was, "She's a functionary in our side of the great battle between mediocre and evil" - that's just a great line.

I like that phrase! :D

Reminds me of the old Ernest Hemingway story about that fan who wouldn't shut up.. So finally ol' Ernest looked at the lady and asked, "Madam, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"...

The lady was flustered and said, "Why yes, of course!!"... Then Hemingway asked, "Would you sleep with me for a dollar?"

The lady got all indignant and said, "Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am.."

Hemingway replied, "We have established that. We're just negotiating the price."

Ba da boom.... :D

Says who? She's a functionary in our side of the great battle between mediocre and evil, not someone we're organizing a fan club for.

Actually, a fan club is exactly what has been established for the esteemable Ms Wasserman-Schultz...

You just forgot to pay your dues..

:D

Michale

What an offensive thing to say. Don't you think you owe an apology to all "the ladies of negotiable affection" out there?

Debbie Wasserman-Schulz is the cat's meow around here.

Says who? She's a functionary in our side of the great battle between mediocre and evil, not someone we're organizing a fan club for.

So, my objection is personal rather than political..

Michale

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204913-dnc-chief-is-backer-of-online-piracy-bill

But she supports SOPA...

Bad kitty!!! Bad kitty!!!! :D

Michale

Looks like Hollywood is giving Obama a great big finger.... :D

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping-obama-donations-because-of-administrations-piracy-stand/

I have to admit, I kind of sympathize with the Hollywood Moguls..

If I had bought and paid for a president like they did, I would be pissed too if he didn't do my bidding...

Michale

Those are two excellent suggestions, just had to say that. I'd add Chris Dodd, for becoming a whore... excuse me, a "lobbyist"... for Hollywood after expressly promising he wasn't going to do so when he quit the Senate.

-CW

yup :)

whoa, that article reads like a conspiracy theorist's wet dream. looking forward to this week's FTP's, lots to talk about. i nominate Leahy for most disappointing due to his unwavering commitment to SOPA-PIPA even after it was found that the legislation was garbage.

most impressive should go to whoever the leader of United Wisconsin is. over a million recall petition signatures mean that they got nearly a third of the registered voters in the whole state - that's not even counting all the recall signatures for lieutenant governor and state legislators.

Looks like someone at ABC was reading CW.com...

Also looks like ABC is being the attack wing of the Democratic Party... :^/

Michale

Here's an interesting followup:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mitt-romney-millions-mormon-church/story?id=15380149&singlePage=true#.TxbyZiNWot4

Looks like someone at ABC was reading CW.com...

Heh.

-CW

Unless, of course, someone has a political reason for casting the suspicion, no?? :D

Personally, I feel if a candidate doesn't want to disclose details of their past, then they have no right to be a candidate...

It's like a Hollywood star complaining about always being in the public eye...

"Waaaaaaaa... Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAA-mbulance..."
-Bruce Willis, THE KID

If they don't like the heat, they have no right being in the kitchen...

That's my take, REGARDLESS of whether it's a Dem or a GOP..

Michale

How about that?

Much better. The statement can now be taken seriously.

However, I still disagree. There's much where it's reasonable to go either way: even if it's reasonable to take an interest in some bit of trivia from a candidate's personal life or distant past, it can still also be reasonable for the candidate to want to keep the personal details private or to ignore the trivia entirely. If the candidate is behaving reasonably, their failure to go obtain the records need not cause any suspicion.

Obama won't release his college transcripts...

I wonder what he is hiding.....

Michale

Sincere and reasonable...

How about that?? :D

Michale

Really, any sincere request? So if some deranged-but-sincere individual wants round-the-clock video surveillance of a candidate, on suspicion that the candidate masturbates, then every politically objective person is supposed to go along with them, in your book?

"Any sincere request" is way too strong a criterion.

Especially if a person lawyer'ed up out the wazoo and spent millions of dollars fighting disclosure...

*ANY* reasonable politically objective person would wonder at something like that...

Michale

So, should all of Newt's divorce records be made public? Just curious...

Abso-frackin'-loutly..

It goes to character...

You know me.. I am happily (ecstatically) married to the same wonderful woman for the last 30 years..

How a man treats his wife is germane to my decision process....

You seem to be the only one bringing it up. Are you now a "Lefty"? Just wondering. Heh.

Now yer just being mean!! :D

I am the one bringing it up in the here and now..

The Left could not stop talking about it during the Bush years...

No, because she's a mental lightweight. And her school records would prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So, school records ARE a factor in determining qualification for President.. :D

As far as Palin... You don't get to be the most popular Governor in the entire nation of a state with a very unique and stressful set of circumstances by being a "mental lightweight"...

Just as you are not a good president and a good leader by being editor of the Harvard Law Review...

Was George Romney eligible for running for president? Inquiring minds want to know. Better research his birth certificate, and the circumstances surrounding it. Just sayin'...

If there is a sincere question in anyone's mind about it, then they have a right to know..

We're not picking a class mascot or something. We are picking someone who is going to have a very VERY profound impact on our lives..

If I want to know the lineage of a possible leader of my country, then I damn well have the right to know..

If a person doesn't like the idea of complete disclosure, then that person shouldn't be running for president.

Because any sincere request for information that is met with a "NONE YA" would make ANY reasonable person who is politically objective wonder, "What is this person hiding??"

Michale

Mitt Romney tonight said (kind-of, sort-of) that he'd release his tax returns in April, when everyone's doing their taxes.

My prediction: he will follow the precedent John McCain took (with almost no mainstream media calling him out for it, I might add), and only release "a few pages" of his tax returns. Rich folk, especially those with their own personal non-profit corporations to lessen their tax burdens, turn in tax returns that are sometimes hundreds of pages in length. Those lines on the tax forms that you and I just enter a number sometimes require dozens of pages of subtotals, in other words, which accountants turn in just to protect themselves if it ever gets to IRS court.

So: my snap prediction: Romney will only partially release his tax returns. 1000 Quatloos. Anyone take that bet? Heh. McCain pioneered this half-assed path, and my bet is that Romney will take full advantage of this cowardly Republican precedent.

Specific comments:

Michale -

So, should all of Newt's divorce records be made public? Just curious...

Michale [22] -

Therefore, the Right has every right to bring up college transcripts/grades in make it's "case"...

If college transcripts/grades are a non-issue, why does the Left keep bringing it up, even to this day???

You seem to be the only one bringing it up. Are you now a "Lefty"? Just wondering. Heh.

BashiBazouk [27] -

Oh, I don't know. Wait until Newt and Santorum get desperate -- then we'll hear that Mitt was an "anchor baby". Heh. Has the benefit of being (slightly) true, even!

Michale -

Was George Romney eligible for running for president? Inquiring minds want to know. Better research his birth certificate, and the circumstances surrounding it. Just sayin'...

Michale [33] -

sarah palin's academic records, probably a bit more interesting.

Why?? Because she is a conservative?? :D

No, because she's a mental lightweight. And her school records would prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

dsws [36] -

Yeah, the concept of "open primaries" is one being explored by many states. CA had one election where anybody could vote in any primary, and then the GOP and Dems shut it down cold. But we've got a bizarre system here now (was voted in by referendum) where in the general election the top two candidates will do, essentially, a "run-off" election -- no matter what party. So certain districts could have a Dem-Dem runoff, and other districts could have a GOP-GOP runoff in the general. As Hunter S. Thompson famously said: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

lmpub [41] -

I think you are right -- the sheer numbers are going to be the ultimate stunner. "Gross income" in the "eight-or-nine figures" range is going to be a real wake-up call to a lot of folks. I've heard even the mainstream media admit that "Mitt Romney is the richest man ever to run for president" and that will come into play in a BIG way in the general election campaign, one way or another. Especially this particular year.

-CW

Count me in that putative minority too. There certainly are some with an unhealthy interest in Sarah Palin, but I'm not ready to stipulate they're necessarily the majority rather than just making a majority of the noise whenever there's news about her.

I’ve always been myself, even when I was ill... only now I seem myself... that is the important thing... I have remembered how to seem!
~the madness of king george

first off, mitt isn't really on the Right and obama isn't really on the Left. second, i'm in no way judging who is actually secretive or not, i'm just gauging political perception as i think most of the country will view two different men.

the prevailing narrative on obama is that demands for personal information on him tend toward tin foil hat conspiracies. that's partly due to his allowing the birthers to go on for as long as they did. they did it to themselves, but he certainly didn't get in the way. in that context, demands for something as rarely requested as academic records seem like racist conspiracy theorists grasping at straws.

the developing narrative on romney is that he isn't so good at handling tough questions. maybe his tax records would generate a few questions, maybe not, but in that context it seems like he's hiding from something. that may or may not be fair, but its the way the two thirds of the population who are not hardcore righties will see it.

See the above comment, and also welcome to the site!!

:-)

-CW

We've had quite a few newcomers in the past few days, and I've been remiss in welcoming everyone to the site.

Your first comment post was held for moderation, which (obviously) took a while. Sorry about that, I was doing important research... um... well, I was watching football all weekend, truth be known.

Anyway, from now on your comments should post instantly, as long as you only post one link per comment. Mulitple link comments are held for moderation to cut down on comment spam.

Like I said, welcome to the site!

-CW

That action being refusal to release information.

The difference between me and everyone else here is that ya'all see the guy on the Right as being "secretive"...

The guy on the Left?? He gets a pass..

With me, I see it as BOTH are being secretive... :D

Michale

As you agree, Obama shares the blame for how long it went on..

no, "blame" implies that someone did something wrong. responsibility for releasing his school transcripts (or not) is 100% on the president. that's a political choice that's worked well for him, because anyone who makes that demand (not that there's anything inherently wrong with that) harms their own credibility, not his.

romney, on the other hand, has been pretty closed-mouthed in general, not just in terms of releasing tax information. in context, mitt comes off as secretive. again, no judgment of right or wrong, just a political decision that affects his image negatively.

My point is simply with the people who blame the length of the issue on the Right..

As you agree, Obama shares the blame for how long it went on..

having paid exactly the amount of attention i thought that revelation deserved, i have absolutely no idea.

Well, then you are definitely in the minority amongst the Left...

Because it's ALL the Left talked about for a few days.. Until they learned that there really was nothing to talk about... :D

I just love it when the Left get's all high and mighty snooty over the Right and their birther nonsense and the Left act like they are sooo above that sort of thing..

Then it's like......

"Sarah Palin Emails!!!! OH MY GODS, LET'S SEND NEWS CREWS TO JUNEAU AND CO-OPT READERS OF LEFT WING RAGS TO SEARCH FOR SALISCIOUS BITS!!!!"
-Hysterical Left

..... thereby showing, once again, there really isn't much difference between the Right and the Left... :D

Michale

blame? that's just the way the game is played. of course there's a reason, to allow anyone who keeps crying wolf to make themselves look as foolish as possible. at the moment we don't yet know whether or not that's romney's strategy. therefore, his non-disclosure is still news.

Yea, many in the Left said similar things about her Email records..
We all know how THAT turned out. :D

having paid exactly the amount of attention i thought that revelation deserved, i have absolutely no idea.

~joshua

If the parties were private clubs, with membership being the criterion for participation in a private-club function, then it would be. But this is how we choose our elected officials. In many states, and in some gerrymandered-district elections in other states, the primary is the real election. And (at least in some states) the rules specifically allow temporary registration switching.

So, as with the Birther issue, Obama shares some of the blame for it going on and on...

If there's nothing to see, then there is absolutely NO reason not to release the records..

no, because her academic history involves a lot more times and places, and is less likely to be a boring line of A's.

Yea, many in the Left said similar things about her Email records..

We all know how THAT turned out. :D

Michale

no, it indicates that when his political adversaries are busy shooting themselves in the foot, he has the sense to stay out of the way.

sarah palin's academic records, probably a bit more interesting.

Why?? Because she is a conservative?? :D

no, because her academic history involves a lot more times and places, and is less likely to be a boring line of A's.

Florida... Not sure about how long...

it's only a couple weeks to the primary, so at this point it's probably too late.

Then there's no harm in releasing them, right??

The mere fact that Obama refuses requests to release the records indicates that something is likely damaging.

sarah palin's academic records, probably a bit more interesting.

Why?? Because she is a conservative?? :D

even if obama's school records and romney's tax returns were somehow equivalent according to some abstract ethical standard, there's no way in creation that they're equally newsworthy.

Then why not release them?? ;D

The more you argue that they don't need to be released, the more you indicate that there's something there...

dsws,

Ok. I wouldn't call that "not allowed to" vote in the primaries. I'd call it "not willing to" switch your registration to either party temporarily.

I'de call that cheating.. :D

What state do you live in, or how long would you have to be party-registered to vote in a primary?

Florida... Not sure about how long...

Michale

Normally that works, but the birthers gambit went too long, too far, and with enough high profile conservatives in tow. The price of the gambit is this time around they are going to have to use other tactics than fishing for damaging past personal info...

the republicans have already spent years crying wolf on obama's past. they are free to complain all they want about his failure to release his kindergarten drawings if they wish, but the dog won't hunt. they blew their vetting capital on the birth certificate.

OK, fine. It's politics.. In politics if one Party brings out information on an opposing Party member, then such information is fair game for the opposing Party to bring out on the Party of the first party....

"fair game" isn't the same as worth anyone's time to investigate. even if anyone really wants obama's transcripts, very few people will ever believe there's anything there worth knowing. if he hadn't done well in school, he never would have been editor of harvard law review. if there were anything to be found there, it would have been found by the clintons four years ago. there's simply no story. sarah palin's academic records, probably a bit more interesting.

it's also well known that romney is filthy rich and worked for many years restructuring corporations. tax returns are extremely common for candidates to release, therefore it matters politically that romney won't. even if obama's school records and romney's tax returns were somehow equivalent according to some abstract ethical standard, there's no way in creation that they're equally newsworthy.

~joshua

I am a registered NPA.

No Political Affiliation.

As such, I can't vote in either Primary.

Michale

Why aren't you allowed to vote in primaries?

I agree.. Tax returns are a valid request...

So are school transcripts..

Michale

It only went too long because Obama *ALLOWED* it to go too long..

this time around they are going to have to use other tactics than fishing for damaging past personal info...

As will the Left.. Because NOW, the Left is going to look like a bunch of hypocrites, demanding disclosure after ridiculing the Right's demand for disclosure...

Michale

But it's distinctly not a trial. Therefore I will think of it as a political campaign.

OK, fine. It's politics.. In politics if one Party brings out information on an opposing Party member, then such information is fair game for the opposing Party to bring out on the Party of the first party....

Michale

It was Obama who promulgated the birther "nonsense" by not doing what he eventually did a lot sooner...

Think of it as a trial..

The Left has "introduced" the idea of college transcripts/grades into their "case"....

Therefore, the Right has every right to bring up college transcripts/grades in make it's "case"...

If college transcripts/grades are a non-issue, why does the Left keep bringing it up, even to this day???

Michale...

Michale....

Yea, I did..

It doesn't matter how HuffPo got ahold of them.

The article shows that there IS an interest in a candidates school transcripts..

Personally, I think it is a legitimate interest and a valid request...

Obama's grades were irrelevant in the 2008 campaign, and they're even more irrelevant now that he's the only candidate in the race who can claim experience as President (and a quite effective C-I-C).

Sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little..

Obama's record as president is abysmal..

Which is exactly why Obama CAN'T campaign on his record...

He is going to have to go negative in a BIG way...

Regardless, the Left seems to consider college grades/transcripts relevant when attacking Right wing candidates..

Therefore college grades/transcripts are fair game in an election...

Michale

The dust-up about Bush's grades was to contrast his with Kerry's in the 2004 campaign. Neither man released his full transcripts of grades at each college they'd attended. What they did do was allow some members of the media to view their Yale transcripts briefly.

Obama's grades were irrelevant in the 2008 campaign, and they're even more irrelevant now that he's the only candidate in the race who can claim experience as President (and a quite effective C-I-C).

I'm just sayin'......

Michale

Let me qualify that to say, "If a candidate doesn't want to release X and doesn't have a valid reason for not wanting to release X, then it's logical to consider that said candidate is hiding something."

If a candidate says, "I don't want to release my Aunt Matilda's cookie recipe because it's a family secret." that's a valid reason for non-disclosure.

However, if a candidate says, "I don't want to release my school transcripts because they are none of your business!" that is NOT a valid reason and it's logical to consider that said candidate is hiding something.

Just had to make sure I was being clear.

Michale

Let me just say that I DO agree with you about Romney releasing his tax records.

It IS customary and Romney SHOULD do it..

I am just saying the concept of a candidate "hiding something" by virtue of not wanting to release something is a valid concept, regardless of what that something is...

Why WOULDN'T Obama want to release his transcripts?? He was obviously a great student.

So, what's he hiding?? :D

Michale

The point of your original commentary was the idea that Romney might be hiding something by virtue of not wanting to release X...

I simply claim that it is also a valid idea that Obama might be hiding something by not releasing X.

What X is, is completely irrelevant to the concept that a candidate appears to be hiding something..

Also see previous taunt: please name one presidential candidate who has released his school transcripts. Or been asked to.

I seem to recall a buttload of ridicule directed towards Bush from the Left regarding his school transcripts....

So, apparently school transcripts are important.... Well, to the Left, anyways...

Anyways, my point is a valid point.. If a candidate doesn't want to release X then the claim that they MIGHT be hiding something is a valid claim, regardless of whether X is a tax return or a school transcript.

Hey, been meaning to ask you -- FL is coming up on primary season. So, what do you think of each and every GOP candidate right now? I am truly curious.

You know me.. As much as I hate to admit it, practically my only criteria in a GOP candidate is that they are able to beat Obama..

And that candidate is Mitt Romney..

Since I have no interest in primaries (as I am not allowed to vote in them) I'll likely start paying more attention to the candidate after the primary is over.. Then I am likely to find more I like (or dislike) about Romney...

By the way, I think I may have to get stronger glasses to read this without getting a headache ... :(

Liz, if you hold CTL button and move your mouse wheel up, you can make the font bigger...

Michale

These can be to any "non-profit" organization (like: the Red Cross, UNICEF, the Girl Scouts, etc.), or it can be to a church.

I may have this wrong, but I think technically "non-profit organization" includes basically anything anyone wants to organize for any purpose other than making money, whereas the things that can have donations be tax-deductible are a fairly stringent category called 501(c)(3) organizations. Your local PTA is a non-profit organization, for example, but unless there's an extraordinary paper-pusher involved they're not set up to have donations get you a tax break.

Which is a really great deal ... until you retire and start drawing it out. :)

Anyway, I wasn't bringing all this up in the context of Romney and I'm certainly not defending his lack of transparency in disclosing his income tax returns.

I just remember back in the 2008 Democratic primaries when Biden was criticized for what most people were calling a less than admirable level of charitable contributions. My answer back was that who are any of us to know how much of his charitable contributions he was actually claiming on his returns ...

Good night!

OK, well didn't know how the Canuck tax form did things ("send in a check for your taxes, or one moose, whichever is easier"... heh). The one in France didn't let you deduct hardly ANYthing, so I wasn't really sure.

Yeah, I can see that, but a more realistic answer (this occurred to me after writing that, above) is that since Mitt gets the break for "capital gains" (and likely has no wages) that since this is handled sort of separately, all his Schedule A deductions may not even come into play. From what I remember (I could be wrong), if most of your income comes as capital gains, you don't even have to send in Sch. A, since you are getting such a monstrous tax break anyway. Food for thought.

-CW

I'm quite familiar with the concept of tax deductible charitable contributions, living in the Western world as I do. But, I think you may have completely missed my point.

Which was that some people who make contributions to charitable organizations and the like, do so for reasons that go well beyond lowering their tax bill.

Can you imagine, for example, that a person might not want to specify their charitable contributions, all or in part, because they feel that it would somehow degrade the generosity and good will behind the contribution in the first place.

Am I making any sense here, as the hour is very late ... ?

Text too tiny?

Let me know...

-CW

You may be unfamiliar with the arcana that is known as the 1040 form, where U.S. folks do our taxes.

Basically, it goes like this: you start with what you make, total it up. Then you total up all the things you can "write off" or subtract -- before you figure out how much in taxes you owe. A big part of this for many folks (both middle class and wealthy, but NOT the poor, for an obscure tax-code reason), is what is known as "charitable contributions." These can be to any "non-profit" organization (like: the Red Cross, UNICEF, the Girl Scouts, etc.), or it can be to a church. Every dime you give to such organizations is subtracted from the total money you pay income tax on -- so it is "tax free" in a sense.

Anyway, so while it is not illegal to make such donations and then not report them on your tax forms, it is kind of stupid, because then you'd just be paying higher taxes for no reason. Meaning everyone reports them on their taxes, in other words.

So for anyone in the US who pays taxes (and, technically, fills out "Schedule A"), church contributions would likely be listed on their tax forms. Although they may not be specifically itemized, just lumped together as a subtotal for "charitable contributions".

Probably more than you wanted to know, right?

-CW

Why are y'all making the assumption that anyone who donates to charity or their church would necessarily claim any or all of that on their income tax forms?

As for the font size, I think 18 would still require me to put my glasses on so ... whatever. :)

See previous comment: apples/battleships.

Also see previous taunt: please name one presidential candidate who has released his school transcripts. Or been asked to.

You are holding Obama to a standard which nobody has been held to before. That's an apple.

I am holding Romney to a standard which EVERY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE has been expected to meet for DECADES AND DECADES now, but which he refuses to do. That, my friend, is the U.S.S. Missouri. You can try all the red herrings that you want, but it still remains just as big.

Hey, been meaning to ask you -- FL is coming up on primary season. So, what do you think of each and every GOP candidate right now? I am truly curious.

-CW

*FULL* Disclosure is *FULL* Disclosure...

It's not tit for tat...

If people think Romney is hiding something because he refuses to release his tax returns, then isn't it logical that people would ALSO think that *OBAMA* is hiding something because he refuses to release his college transcripts???

*FULL* Disclosure is *FULL* Disclosure...

The BIG change, though, is one that I am requesting any and all feedback on. For some bizarre reason, when setting this site up, I chose a font size that is not standard at all -- 13 point. This caused the site to look a little weird on some browsers or some devices. So I finally got around to changing it. I set it at 12 point. Is this noticeably smaller? More importantly, is it now "too small"?

It IS different, I have to admit...

But my resolution is 1650 x 1050 so EVERYTHING looks small... :D

Michale

OK, in retiring (for the year) the "Holiday Fundraiser" banner, I mucked around a little with the site's code. The "Donate!" button stayed in the top menu, although it's still not exactly the way I want it, it should now appear in the same color as the rest of the menu items (it was red during the pledge drive).

The BIG change, though, is one that I am requesting any and all feedback on. For some bizarre reason, when setting this site up, I chose a font size that is not standard at all -- 13 point. This caused the site to look a little weird on some browsers or some devices. So I finally got around to changing it. I set it at 12 point. Is this noticeably smaller? More importantly, is it now "too small"?

This should affect the text of the stories themselves, as well as random other bits of text throughout the site.

If people think it's now too tiny, I will try 14 point and see how that goes.

Let me know, one way or another. Thanks.

-CW

That's ridiculous. Obama HAS released his tax returns, during the 08 campaign, and he has released every single year since then. FULL disclosure, EVERY form -- unlike John ("How many houses do I own??? I'll have to get back to you on that") McCain was willing to do.

College transcripts? Name me one other presidential candidate IN ALL OF HISTORY who released such to the media. McCain, remember, REFUSED to release his own military record (including his Annapolis record).

So please, let's keep it apples/apples, and not apples/battleships. Obama has and continues to release his FULL tax returns. So please explain why Romney should not do the same?

-CW

I am SOOOOO glad that this issue has come up!!!

What is hiding in Barack Obama's College Records/Transcripts?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours... :D

Seriously, though.. You have to assume that EVERY question regarding disclosure from the GOP Presidential Candidate is going to be answered with an equal request for disclosure from Barack Obama..

So, it seems to me that if people want FULL disclosure from Mitt Romney, then it's reasonable to request FULL disclosure from Barack Obama...

No???

Michale.....